Can we query on _version_field ?

Hi All, We know that _version_field is a mandatory field in solrcloud schema.xml, it is expected to be of type long , it also seems to have unique value in a collection. However the query of the form http://server1.mydomain.com:7344/solr/collection1/select/?q=*:*&fq=%28_version_:14846325489443800

How to return single value from multi valued field

Hi, I have a multi valued field "keywords". Having values in the following way. Marathi Bengali Gujarati Malayalam Kannada Telugu Tamil English Hindi if i search for any keyword, all keywords are appearing. How can we show only matched key

Re: Problems after upgrade 4.10.1 -> 4.10.2

you can migrate zookeeper data manually. 1. connect zookeeper. - zkCli.sh -server host:port 2. check old data - get /collections/"your collection name"/leader_initiated_recovery/"your shard name" [zk:

Re: Different ids for the same document in different replicas.

Sorry,its actually doctorUrl, so I dont want to use doctorUrl as a lookup mechanism because urls can have special characters that can caise issue with Solr lookup. I guess I should rephrase my question to ,how to auto generate the unique keys in the id field when using SolrCloud? On Nov 12, 2014

Re: Different ids for the same document in different replicas.

You mention you already have a unique Key identified for the data you’re storing in Solr: > doctorId If that’s the field you’re using to uniquely identify each thing you’re storing in the solr index, why do you want to have an id field that is populated with some random value? You’ll be using

Re: Different ids for the same document in different replicas.

Just tried adding id while keeping id type= "string" only blank ids are being generated ,looks like the id is being auto generated only if the the id is set to type uuid , but in case of SolrCloud this id will be unique per replica. Is there a way to generate a unique id both in case of SolrCl

Re: Different ids for the same document in different replicas.

Thanks. So the issue here is I already have a doctorId defined in my schema.xml. If along with that I also want the field to be automatically generated for each document do I have to declare it as a as well , because I just tried the following setting without the uniqueKey for id and its only g

Re: Problems after upgrade 4.10.1 -> 4.10.2

Considering the impact, I think we should put this out as an announcement on the 'news' section of the website warning people about this. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar < shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote: > I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6732 > > On Wed,

Re: DIH Blob data

How about this? First, define a field for filter query. It should be multivalued. Second, implements transformer to extract json dynamic fields, and put the dynamic fields into the solr field. For example, Data : {a:1,b:2,c:3} You can split the data to "a:1", "b:2", "c:3", and put them into

Re: DIH Blob data

We routinely store images and pdfs in Solr. There *is* a benefit, since you don't need to manage another storage system, you don't have to worry about Solr getting out of sync with the other system, you can use Solr replication for all your assets, etc. I don't use DIH, so personally I don't c

Re: DIH Blob data

BLOB is non-searchable field so there is no benefit of storing it into Solr. Any external key-value store can be used to store the blob and reference of this blob can be stored as a string field in Solr. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:56 PM, stockii wrote: > I had a similar problem and didnt find any

Re: SOLRJ Atomic updates of String field

I understood the query now. Atomic Update and Optimistic Concurrency are independent in Solr version > 5. Not sure about version 4.2, if they are combined in this version a _version_ field is needed to pass in every update. The atomic/partial update will succeed if version in the request and indexe

Re: Problems after upgrade 4.10.1 -> 4.10.2

I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6732 On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar < shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > You're right, there's a back-compat break here. I'll open an issue. > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Lamy wrote: > >> Am 1

Re: Problems after upgrade 4.10.1 -> 4.10.2

Hi Thomas, You're right, there's a back-compat break here. I'll open an issue. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Lamy wrote: > Am 12.11.2014 um 15:29 schrieb Thomas Lamy: > >> Hi there! >> >> As we got bitten by https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6530 on a >> regular basis, we sta

Re: Problems after upgrade 4.10.1 -> 4.10.2

Am 12.11.2014 um 15:29 schrieb Thomas Lamy: Hi there! As we got bitten by https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6530 on a regular basis, we started upgrading our 7 mode cloud from 4.10.1 to 4.10.2. The first node upgrade worked like a charm. After upgrading the second node, two cores no

Problems after upgrade 4.10.1 -> 4.10.2

Hi there! As we got bitten by https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6530 on a regular basis, we started upgrading our 7 mode cloud from 4.10.1 to 4.10.2. The first node upgrade worked like a charm. After upgrading the second node, two cores no longer come up and we get the following error

Re: DIH Blob data

I had a similar problem and didnt find any solution to use the fields in JSON Blob for a filter ... Not with DIH. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/DIH-Blob-data-tp4168896p4168925.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.